---

Terrorism (Foreign Policy Aspects)

: I stand corrected and rightly so. I take on board the observation that the Minister rightly makes. ““Extraordinary rendition”” is a euphemism and much sinister intent might lie behind it. The debate about this issue has now escalated, for all the reasons with which we are familiar. We, as a country, need not only to ensure that we behave with due regard to law and proper process, but to dispel any doubts elsewhere in the world that we are complicit in any way in a practice that could rightly be seen as a flagrant case of double standards. I recently read that Condoleeza Rice had said that rendition was required"““where the terrorists cannot in practice be reached by the ordinary processes of law””." She added that"““the captured terrorists of the 21st century do not fit easily into traditional systems of criminal or military justice.””" No wonder that legitimate fears have arisen that extraordinary rendition is nothing more than a way in which suspects can be apprehended illegally, out of the ambit of the law, to be subject to mistreatment in a manner that is illegal and immoral and that undermines the fundamentals of our moral case in the war against terrorism. We are all entitled to ask questions of the Government about their response—which so far has not been entirely clear—to the events as information has come out into the public domain in dribs and drabs. I draw the Minister's attention, first, to page 9 of the Government response to the Select Committee's report. It states:"““The British Government has not received any requests, nor granted any permissions, for the use of UK territory or airspace for these purposes””—" namely, the landing and taking off of the aeroplanes holding the suspected terrorists. There appears to be a well documented body of evidence suggesting that up to 400 flights have landed and taken off from British airports. It simply stretches credulity that that can have taken place without the British authorities and the British Government having any knowledge of it whatever. I would like the Minister to put my fears to rest: it is either an act of extraordinary incompetence or something much worse to suggest that 400 such flights can take place without the Government being aware of them at all. Secondly and perhaps of even greater importance is the attitude that the Government should have towards the US interpretation of the legal context in which the process of extraordinary rendition has taken place. The convention against torture quite explicitly stipulates that any transfer of individuals to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to torture should be prohibited. However, if I understand the situation correctly, the US Administration have picked their words extremely carefully to suggest that they will not tolerate any extraordinary rendition if they believe that the individual in question will be tortured. There is a world of difference between someone saying that they believe a person will be tortured and saying that they think a person may be in danger of being tortured. It seems to me that a great deal hinges on that. If we are going to lower the bar, as the words of the US Government seem to suggest, so that there is a unilateral judgment on whether someone will be tortured and that judgment will determine whether extraordinary rendition should take place, that will totally fly in the face of the letter and the spirit of the convention against torture. I am keen to know the Minister's attitude towards that subtle legal reinterpretation of the terms of the convention. Thirdly and finally, it is worth recalling—this seems to have fallen slightly beyond the parameters of the public debate over the past few days—that the convention against torture does not just prohibit torture. It also prohibits"““other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment””." In other words, the convention against torture, to which we are a signatory, goes far wider in terms of the forms of treatment or maltreatment that it covers than the definition of torture that has become the focus of so many of the legal niceties and pronouncements by the US Government. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the UK Government want the full and unconditional application of the full definition in the convention against torture. This is not just a series of debating points. It goes to the core of the legitimacy of our war against terrorism. If we cannot uphold the legal and moral principles that we invoke in our fight against terrorists, we significantly weaken our case and blemish the standing of this nation and our beliefs and views elsewhere in the world. That does untold damage to the long-term prospects of the war against terrorism. I want to mention the middle east conflict. I shall be briefer on this point, not least because so much has been said in an extremely articulate and pointed fashion. It is almost trite to observe that a durable settlement in that ancient conflict would do much to allay the false stereotypes, the anger, the vitriol and the hostility that feed so much of the opinion, in other parts of the world, that bears directly on the rise in terrorism throughout the world. I was struck by how tentative the Select Committee's report is about the middle east. The section on the middle east—I am not sure whether the fact is representative of anything—is just over two pages. That compares to almost 11 pages on Libya.